This
matter comes before the court on Defendant WCE Oil Field
Services, LLC's (WCE) and Defendant Reagan Royer's
(Royer)(collectively Defendants) motion to dismiss and motion
to transfer venue. For the reasons stated below,
Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied and the motion to
transfer is granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff
Zane Zielinski (Zielinski) alleges that on October 18, 2013,
Rhonda Brandt and Robin Brandt were involved in an automobile
collision with Reagan Royer, who was allegedly employed by
WCE. Zielinski alleges that the collision occurred in
McKenzie County, North Dakota. Zielinski alleges that on
August 20, 2015, Robin Brandt and Rhonda Brandt filed a
voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7 of Title 11, in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District
of Illinois (Northern District). Zielinski was allegedly
appointed trustee in the bankruptcy case. Zielinski alleges
that on October 16, 2015, he filed an adverse complaint
against Defendants arising out of the alleged automobile
collision. Defendants move to dismiss the claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b) or, in the alternative, transfer the
case to the District of North Dakota under 28 U.S.C. §
1404.

DISCUSSION

I.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1409

Defendants
argue that venue in the Northern District of Illinois is
improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (Section 1391(b)).
Under Section 1391(b), venue is proper when an action is
brought in: “(1) a judicial district in which any
defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the
State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial
district in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial
part of property that is the subject of the action is
situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action
may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any
judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the
court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such
action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Defendants argue
that venue cannot be proper under Section 1391.

Section
1391(b) applies if venue is not “otherwise provided by
law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Zielinski argues that
28 U.S.C. § 1409(a)(Section 1409) provides the
underlying basis for the Northern District as the proper
venue. Section 1409 states that “a proceeding arising
under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title
11 may be commenced in the district court in which such case
is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a). A trustee may
commence a proceeding arising in or related to such a case if
the debtors or creditors “may have commenced an action
on which such proceeding is based if the case under title 11
had not been commenced.” 28 U.S.C. § 1409(d).

Zielinski
alleges that the automobile collision occurred on October 18,
2013. Zielinski also alleges that on August 20, 2015, Robin
Brandt and Rhonda Brandt initiated a title 11 bankruptcy
proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois. Zielinski
argues that the claim against Defendants is related to the
title 11 bankruptcy proceeding because the proceeds from the
lawsuit would presumably be distributed to creditors.
Defendants contend that the bankruptcy is discharged, which
although true, does not mean that the bankruptcy is closed
under 28 U.S.C. § 350(a). Since the bankruptcy is not
closed under 28 U.S.C. § 350(a), the case was properly
filed in the Northern District of Illinois. Therefore,
Defendants motion to dismiss under Section 1391(b) is denied.

II.
28 U.S.C. § 1404

Defendants
also move to transfer the instant action to the District of
North Dakota under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (Section 1404). A
district court may transfer an action to another district
where the action might have been brought pursuant to Section
1404(a) “[f]or the convenience of parties and
witnesses, ” and if it is “in the interest of
justice . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In order to
transfer a case, the transferor court must first find that:
(1) venue is proper in the transferor district, see
Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 (7th
Cir. 1986)(stating that a court “in which a suit is
filed with proper venue” may transfer an action
pursuant to § 1404(a)), and (2) venue is proper in the
transferee district. See 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a)(stating that transfer can only be made to a district
in which the action “might have been brought”).

A.
Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

Zielinski's
choice of forum is entitled to deference. In considering
whether to transfer an action, the court should “give
some weight to the plaintiff's choice of forum.”
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Citizens Bank & Trust
Co. of Park Ridge, Ill., 592 F.2d 364, 368 (7th Cir.
1979); see also In re National Presto Industries,
Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 2003)(stating that
“‘unless the balance is strongly in favor of the
defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely
be disturbed'”)(quoting in part Gulf Oil Corp.
v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)). Zielinski's
choice of forum in the Northern District of Illinois arose
from the bankruptcy proceedings in this District. See
Edgewater Medical Center v. Rogan, 2010 WL 271148, *3
(N.D. Ill. 2010)(stating that because plaintiff “has
filed an adversary proceeding arising out of the bankruptcy
proceedings against Defendants, the district court in which
the bankruptcy case is pending constitutes the appropriate
venue for the adversary proceeding”). While the court
should consider Zielinski's desire to proceed in the
Northern District of Illinois, Zielinski's choice of
forum is merely one factor to consider and is not a
controlling factor, particularly when a case has such limited
connections to the chosen forum as in this case. Also, where
the “plaintiff's choice of forum is not the site of
material events, it is entitled to less deference.”
Cole v. Bell, 2009 WL 4730966, *1 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
The site of the material events, the automobile collision,
occurred in the District of North Dakota. Therefore,
Zielinski's choice of forum in the Northern District of
Illinois is entitled to less deference.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.